Tuesday, December 01, 2015

Worshipping at the altar of Gaia

The human fallibility of science is amply and tragically demonstrated through the centuries, including our current one. Our long recognized desire for data to fit preconceptions has generated research constructs that attempt to compensate for our biases - our desires. Thus, for example, medical research uses placebo controls and double blinding.

When the desires of human scientists are laced powerfully with wealth, power and prestige, disgrace can result, as a recent slew of retracted medical research publications can attest. Money, power and prestige. Any scientist, or body of scientists can succumb.

Thus my strong reservations about the extraordinarily politicized, monied and public assertions of impending Anthropogenic Global Warming cataclysm. Frenzied absurdity is epitomized by solemn Nobel acclaim for Al Gore? Can anybody else see the emperor's new clothes?

What's important for science here is that research and debate continue, for from this eventually will emerge incontrovertible truth. The pseudo-scientific, politicized steamrolling of dissent seen thus far has been disgraceful.

Climate science, meaning climate modeling, very clearly is not science. In every respect it represents falsificationism. Falsificationism is the process of presenting a false argument or observation and demanding that others show that it is not true.

The climate scientists have presented a false argument (such as, CO2 is primarily responsible for global temperature change) and they have demanded that others prove that it is not true. In the process of defending their false assertions they attempted to limit the discussion of the issues and they have tried to blacklist opposing scientists. The global warming folks have even attempted to cover-up past warming events (that are well documented in glacial science) to support their false science.

These tactics are not compatible with the scientific method and in the course of time will be overcome by experiment and observation.

One of the biggest drivers behind the doctrine of anthropogenic global warming is the leftist belief that AGW causes economic injustice. Leftists believe that developed, industrialized nations are raping the earth for profit and causing the earth's climate to warm unnaturally, and poor nations are paying the price for this.

In order to fix the economic injustice caused by allowing developed nations to increase global warming, the left wants all the industrialized nations to redistribute part of their income to poorer nations who supposedly are suffering more from the effects of global warming. Look at the U.N. reports on global warming for proof of this.

People on the left have a crazed desire to redistribute income. The fact that they can use the concocted doctrine of anthropogenic global warming to accomplish wealth redistribution means it will be almost impossible to get the left to ever admit that AGW does not exist--no matter much how much evidence you give them.

The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that AGW, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

The problem I see is that those opposing AGW fall into the trap of using the same data to make their case. This data is from a scant scintilla of this planet's age and climate history and they ignore the true big picture. That big picture to me is the geological history of this planet that shows huge long term swings in cooling, warming, CO2 levels and temperature swings that occurred without any input from man over the last 600 million years.

This geological history shows us that in the very short period of the last million years or so, the planet had ice ages lasting around 100,000 years followed by periods of warming lasting about 10,000 years. Obviously, as one views this geological history, an inconvenient truth emerges that man’s activity had nothing to do with the warming periods that last around 10,000 years before the planet again goes into the deep freeze.

The way in which I couch the futility of determining the extent of man made climate change: The Earth has had 4.3 billion years to develop an integrated ecosystem of millions of species of life, all of which together work to regulate global temperatures.

There are millions of systems, subsystems, and sub-sub systems working in unison. Until every one of those systems can be tracked accurately, it is futile to expect that we have any idea how Gaia performs her 'magic'.

Some claim that we can deduce or determine the major systems, but until we have tracked the vast majority of all systems and how they interact as conditions change, we truly do not know which ones are the key ones.

Another fact, a billion years ago, the Earth was plunged into a freezing darkness. It took 200 million years, but eventually the global ecosystem brought the planet back into stasis, after which Earth had the greatest bloom in speciation in Earth's history. Earth has its ways of doing things.

I say all this not to imply that we should ignore what humans are doing to the Earth. Indeed, we ought to leave as small a footprint as possible, as a gift to our future offspring. Certainly, there is a lot of polluting going on, runaway GMOs, millions of chemicals being pumped into the environment, etc. all of which ought to be either more regulated, or more controlled by the perpetrators themselves - with oversight from some independent organization (trust but verify).

But the clue as to how phony climate warmism is in how much chicanery and obfuscation the pro-warmists have repeatedly engaged in. The arrogance of liberals is EPIC, they always figure they can bluff their way to victory. Of course, if and when humans were to try to 'fix' this nonexistent problem, the 'solution' would probably be catastrophic in that it would be designed based on a completely too simplistic, broken model that would inevitably yield the wrong answers and solutions.

Another way I look at it - liberals worship at the altar of Gaia, they profess their admiration for Darwinism and evolution, so how come they have so little faith in nature and its systems?

It is all about money and power at the end of the day, and people with common sense get that. Liberals would love to have their mitts in every aspect of everyone's business, from sunup to sundown. They would love to have a convenient excuse to tax people to death based on people exhaling a 'pollutant' (something that the more plants inhale, the faster they grow, but count on libs to defy logic).

In my view, AGW is a research grant scam and the best way for opposing voices to discredit it is to focus on the true big picture. The best rebuttal is to point out the long term geological history of this planet and the conclusion that past cooling and warming periods had nothing to do with man. Using climate data of a few decades or even centuries to project the future while ignoring millions of years of geological climate history is the true definition of junk science.

When Al Gore divests himself of his four mansions in this country, including his most recent mansion, a $9.5 Million ocean side estate in Montecito, California, an exclusive community on the West Coast that, according to Gore, was supposed to be under water by now, then perhaps I'll consider downsizing my life.

When I see Gore in one of those clown cars instead of a group of large SUVs and Gulf Stream jets on his way to exotic locales to enjoy fine wines and rich food, then maybe I'll worry about the polar bears.

When all the global warming elites move into 400 sq. ft. inner city high rise flats built by the government in the inner city, as they advocate for us, then I'll worry about the earth burning up.

Until then, I'll let his dupes and stooges on the left forage the ground for nuts and berries as I drive to the grocery store in my politically incorrect SUV.